Cryer v Scott Brothers (Sunbury) Ltd
Cryer v Scott Brothers (Sunbury) Ltd
- 1988
- Property and Compensation Reports (1988) 55 PCR 183-204(22) .
CA 19 December 1987. By a transfer, in 1955, part of a plot of land was transferred to the defendants (S) who entered into restrictive covenants for the benefit of the remainder of the plot. One covenant required all building plans to be submitted to the original owners (S) for approval before building work commenced. By a transfer in 1956 S transferred a house built on the estate to the plaintiff (C) the covenants transferring with the land. In 1958 the remainder of the plot was transfered to S who thereby became entitled to the benefit of the covenants included in the 1955 transfer. In 1982 C wrote to S informing them that he proposed to build an additional room over the garage. S refused permission. C claimed that approval was not needed as it applied only to the original construction of a house and not to extensions . If he was held to the covenant there was an implied promise that approval would not be refused unreasonably by S. Judgment was given for C on appeal, it was held th
CA 19 December 1987. By a transfer, in 1955, part of a plot of land was transferred to the defendants (S) who entered into restrictive covenants for the benefit of the remainder of the plot. One covenant required all building plans to be submitted to the original owners (S) for approval before building work commenced. By a transfer in 1956 S transferred a house built on the estate to the plaintiff (C) the covenants transferring with the land. In 1958 the remainder of the plot was transfered to S who thereby became entitled to the benefit of the covenants included in the 1955 transfer. In 1982 C wrote to S informing them that he proposed to build an additional room over the garage. S refused permission. C claimed that approval was not needed as it applied only to the original construction of a house and not to extensions . If he was held to the covenant there was an implied promise that approval would not be refused unreasonably by S. Judgment was given for C on appeal, it was held th